face by baking, re-sampling it or whatever else, in order to get a whole surface from ALL of the meshes, that can be manipulated as 1 surface with isocurve division (that can be changed to more or less divisions).
So far, the .gh attached is the closest I came to do it...
In the image there is the example meshes, which are not co-planar, and they are derived from Kangaroo. Also the curve I used to try and "cull" the surface fragments into, for some reason it has a "space" between the srf's and the curve itself when the U and V of the Patch is 2, and when the U gets to 10 it gets "tighter" to the curve... what is that all about?
Also, from the image you can see that when the domain UV is 4 there are squares "left out" of the cull, which is not supposed to happen, and when it is 20 for example then it filters them correctly.
The cull pattern is supposed to take all the surface fragments which are cut by the curve, and keep only those "inside" the curve, but for some reason this is problematic, due to all of this process.
Is there any way around this to get the result? a better way? using T-splines instead of GH?
Any help is appreciated. Thanks.…
something (C# or components) that does a planer periodic nurbs - any shape imaginable in fact (shown a humble "figure of 8").
2. Imagine a capability (C# only: sorry) to create a "guide" (indicative/intermediate) surface. Basically: patch the nurbs from step 1 against a variety of user controlled curves/points/cats/dogs/you name it.
3. Imagine doing this U/v quad mesh thingy (we can fill the "gaps" [C# only: sorry] with the base boundary easily - especially when triangulating the mesh - but better work as shown):
4. Imagine calling the cavalry (Kangaroo) and instructing to do ... things on that "normalized" mesh.
5. What things? Well ... like equalize edges, "inflate", planarize the quads (extra WOW stuff that one), pull it against the "guide" surface [from step 2] or some other weird ideas of mine.
this is what V2 does (WIP).
more soon
…
sando las nuevas tecnologías de la información en la arquitectura para la gestión del conocimiento de sistemas que desarrollen estructuras sustentables, desde los procesos de diseño generativos o algorítmicos. Donde se contempla la P.O.O. (programación orientada a objetos) como nuevo lenguaje de expresión para el arquitecto-diseñador en el siglo XXI.Los talleres están pensados para sigan un hilo conductual en el que al mismo tiempo que se enseña se investiga y experimenta. Por primera vez se contará con diversos miembros de SEED como docentes de forma presencial y por video conferencia, logrando de esta forma acercar a los especialistas que se encuentran en Europa a los asistentes de los talleres sin encarecer los costos.+info:http://www.studioseed.net/ adn-methodology/
Los talleres están dirigidos a personas que tengan o quieran conseguir un perfil alto de innovación, creatividad, flexibilidad: profesionales con actividades de dirección, gerencia, proyectistas, investigadores, así como a estudiantes a partir de 5to semestre en adelante. Cada taller abarca perfiles diversos de profesionales, mientras unos están más orientados a directivos y gerencias, otros más a proyectistas.
LOS TALLERES:FAB DIG I / ITESM – CEM / Estado de México / 20 hrs / 8 – 11 al de diciembre 2011 (En este taller no se aplican descuentos ni becas)PARAMETRIC GREEN HOUSING / Colegio de Arquitectos del estado de Jalisco (Por confirmar Sede) / Guadalajara / 20h + 5h proyecto / 30 enero 2012 al 4 de diciembre 2012FAB DIG II / ITESM – CEM / Estado de México / 30h + 5h proyecto / 8 a 12 febrero 2012TERCERA REVOLUCIÓN INDUSTRIAL: TIC`s + SOSTENIBILIDAD. Procesos y paradigmas emergentes / Querétaro / 20 hrs / 15 al 18 de febrero 2012INTRODUCCIÓN AL DISEÑO GENERATIVO / UAM-azc / DF / 8hrs / 13, 14 de enero (Costo representativo $650, máximo 40 personas, mínimo 15 personas)INTRODUCCIÓN A: SCRIPTING CON GRASSHOPPER ( Python) Y PLUGINS / Estudio SEED México / Estado de México / 30 hrs / 23, 24, 25 febrero y 1,2, 3 de marzo 2012…
Added by SEED studio at 3:30am on November 24, 2011
sophy though, I have a rudimentary grasp of the Ancient Greeks and modern schools of thought such as Existentialism and Pragmatism, but there is certainly no depth in my understanding. However here the same rule applies. You can quote philosophy all you want, but unless you understand that which you're channelling you can be -at best- accidentally correct.
According to you, these are all vital characteristics:
Aesthetic judgement
Intuition about spatial effectiveness
Knowledge of construction materials & assembly systems
Consideration of performance-driven design properties
Mad synthesizing skillz
[1] and [2] are pretty much worthless, especially when we're dealing with students. Aesthetic judgement is not something that can be wrong or right. You can hone your aesthetic skills but you cannot cultivate better tastes. Intuition is also problematic. It's basically a stand-in for argumentation. Instead of saying "these buildings have to have 20 meters apart because of wind/sound/human perception/human psychology/light/shadow/etc. etc" is a far stronger statement than "these buildings have to have 20 meters apart because of my feelings". Who are you to be trusted? If you have a long and distinguished career backing you up, maybe your opinions carry some weight, but until that point you'd better be prepared to justify your decisions with cold hard logic and data.
[3] is certainly important for certain jobs in construction, but it can be argued that implementation details are not necessarily central to a design. One can design a good computer interface without having to be able to program, and certainly without being familiar with all the idiosyncrasies of a particular programming language. Conversely, one can design an excellent space without knowing exactly how strong certain atomic bonds are. If what you design is physically impossible, then obviously something has to change, but it doesn't mean that the design as an abstract idea was bad. Of course on the other hand one can argue that designing impossible things is not doing anyone any favours. I'm not exactly certain where I stand on this issue, probably comfortably in the middle; YES, students need to learn about what can be build in the physical world, but NO that is not part of design training.
I'm not quite sure what [4] means.
[5] is true for a lot of professions, not just Architects. I would concede that architects probably have more to take into account than most designers and that it is indeed an important skill to have.
I would say that -especially for students, who have little experience- an incredibly important skill to be able to ask yourself "why am I doing this?" about pretty much every decision you make. Basically you need to get very comfortable applying the Socratic method to everything you do.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 11:03am on August 14, 2013
er to sort them, I figured I would take the 0 item on each branch and find the distance from it to its neighbors.
I got 5 distances, then I added 0 to the list to get 6 distances.
I sorted the list of points and then tried to find the 0, 2, and 4 indices and connect them to the 1,3, and 5 indices respectively.
If everything work out, which it hasn't, then you would see complete pentagons with no overlapping lines.
Would anyone be willing to take a look at my definition (which I cleaned up! It's not big anymore!)
and let me know what's wrong?
Thank you!
…
nergy plus silulation and this is the error text:
Current document units is in MetersConversion to Meters will be applied = 1.000Duplicate surface name! Name is changed to: Pelle_Sopra_DupDuplicate surface name! Name is changed to: Pelle_Nord_Dup[1 of 8] Writing simulation parameters...[2 of 8] No context surfaces...[3 of 8] Writing geometry...[4 of 8] Writing Electric Load Center - Generator specifications ...[5 of 8] Writing materials and constructions...[6 of 8] Writing schedules...[7 of 8] Writing loads and ideal air system...[8 of 8] Writing outputs......... idf file is successfully written to : C:\Users\Personal\Desktop\TESI\x006\THOR001\EnergyPlus\THOR001.idf
Analysis is running!...C:\Users\Personal\Desktop\TESI\x006\THOR001\EnergyPlus\eplusout.csv......
Done! Read below for errors and warnings:
Program Version,EnergyPlus, Version 8.3.0-6d97d074ea, YMD=2016.01.05 20:08,IDD_Version 8.3.0
************* IDF Context for following error/warning message:
************* Note -- lines truncated at 300 characters, if necessary...
************* 160 ScheduleTypeLimits,
************* indicated Name=ANY NUMBER
************* Only last 2 lines before error line shown.....
************* 161 ANY NUMBER, !- name
************* 162 ScheduleTypeLimits, !-
** Severe ** IP: IDF line~162 Invalid Number in Numeric Field#1 (Lower Limit Value), value=SCHEDULETYPELIMITS, in SCHEDULETYPELIMITS=ANY NUMBER
************* IDF Context for following error/warning message:
************* Note -- lines truncated at 300 characters, if necessary...
************* 258 ScheduleTypeLimits,
************* indicated Name=ANY NUMBER
************* Only last 2 lines before error line shown.....
************* 259 ANY NUMBER, !- name
************* 260 ScheduleTypeLimits, !-
** Severe ** IP: IDF line~260 Invalid Number in Numeric Field#1 (Lower Limit Value), value=SCHEDULETYPELIMITS, in SCHEDULETYPELIMITS=ANY NUMBER
** Warning ** IP: Note -- Some missing fields have been filled with defaults. See the audit output file for details.
** Severe ** IP: Possible incorrect IDD File
** ~~~ ** IDD Version:"IDD_Version 8.3.0"
** ~~~ ** Version in IDF="8.3.0" not the same as expected="8.3"
** ~~~ ** Possible Invalid Numerics or other problems
** Fatal ** IP: Errors occurred on processing IDF file. Preceding condition(s) cause termination.
...Summary of Errors that led to program termination:
..... Reference severe error count=3
..... Last severe error=IP: Possible incorrect IDD File
************* Warning: Node connection errors not checked - most system input has not been read (see previous warning).
************* Fatal error -- final processing. Program exited before simulations began. See previous error messages.
************* EnergyPlus Warmup Error Summary. During Warmup: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.
************* EnergyPlus Sizing Error Summary. During Sizing: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.
************* EnergyPlus Terminated--Fatal Error Detected. 1 Warning; 3 Severe Errors; Elapsed Time=00hr 00min 0.30sec
thanks for any help
Lhor…
nt should stand up to reasonable, Socratic interrogation with logical and descriptive rigor. For example, I find entirely credible an architect who suggests that he placed his buildings 20 meters apart because he thought that it would make people more comfortable in light of his reading of the space relative to its environment, materiality, expected time of habitation/circulation, etc. His "thinking" such things is, for the most part intuitive, and backed by deductive logic. (Of course integration of wind analysis and other harder readings is obviously desirable) But I interpret the active denial of intuition's crucial role in design as at the heart of its current deplorable trending toward misuse of terminology, application of pseudo-science and intellectual over-reach. Architects wade out of their waters precisely when they invoke such things as human psychology or perception.
Furthermore, I believe that architects - student and professionals alike - regularly make formal decisions according to their aesthetic judgement. To suggest that students aren't qualified to make a design decision during their studies because they think it's formally successful seems exceedingly stingy; likewise, suggesting that a professional architect shouldn't rely on it is puzzling to me. I find architects' attempts to justify what are obviously decisions based on formal taste using other means often taking the same form of obfuscation that makes architects appear to be intellectual charlatans to specialists in other fields. Taste is taste. I would agree that it can't be taught. But good architectural design certainly remains at least somewhat grounded in artistic sensibility.
3) I'm by no means advocating that all architects must master every detail in their work. Rather, that architects have at least a generalist's working knowledge of materials and construction systems. Floors don't levitate, and windows require depth; rules of thumb count as vital knowledge.
4) I would say that consideration of performance-driven properties falls under basic understanding of how a building will operate in its given environment. For example, if you've designed a glass house in Arizona, ur doing it wrong. The more simulation and science you have, the better. Indeed, I think that such elements - wind analysis, solar gain analysis, structural performance - represent the most solid opportunities today for architects to assert the harder lines of defense in their design decision making...say for example, being able to demonstrate using basic geometry that your shade keeps the sun out in summer, but lets it in when it's cold.…
ed. This image shows the problem:
If this is not what you are seeing on your own machine when you hook up your HBZones to a panel, then you have not uploaded the right Rhino and Grasshopper file.
2) You have not run your HBZones through an EnergyPlus simulation. You need to do this in order to get data with which to construct the indoor temperature map. I would strongly recommend following along through the first 8 videos of this tutorial series before trying to construct an indoor radiant temperature map of your own project (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-SgW4uDtNSMLeiUmA8YXEHT_)
3) You are using components from the last stable release, which is fine but you should know that there has been a lot of development on the indoor temperature map workflow in the last 20 days (there is now a much cleaner workflow that integrates the air and radiant temperature with comfort alanyses now on the github). If you imagine using this workflow frequently, I would recommend updating with the Ladybug_Update Ladybug and Hopneybee_Update Honeybee components. See the attached recent file for how the workflow is currently structured.
-Chris…
easy. There is room for discussion and clarification. The most wanted ideas quickly, and clearly, rise to the top. Voting is limited in a clever way and forces users to choose their most valued features.
The general rules, copied from: http://3dsmaxfeedback.autodesk.com/forums/80695-general-feature-requests/
Each user has 20 votes for each forum
Each idea can have no more than 3 votes by a single user
If you enter an idea, it will cost you 1 vote – therefore try to make sure the idea doesn’t already exist
The more precise and detailed a description you give, the more likely your idea will be considered
When an idea is implemented (or declined), votes are returned to all the users that voted
Users can change their votes at any time
Admins can move, edit and delete ideas as they see fit to better meet the goals of the forum
We will flag ideas that are getting our attention as “under review”. Because of limits on what we can say publicly, that is as far as we can go with commenting on a particular idea. If it is “under review” it simply means we’re studying it for possible implementation or gathering data, but there is no commitment to do it.
…
Added by Jonah Hawk at 6:13pm on September 9, 2014